Any casual student of sex and gender recognizes the reasons that women are considered the subordinated sex. Chief among these is that women are the sex that bear children. This is the basis, and it’s an irreducible function that defines women as a separate biological class of human from men. Adult females of other mammalian species separate their social functions from the males in many different ways due to evolved social structures, but in humans we have adapted to place women in a sheltered class that limits social mobility and power. It’s a patriarchal structure that arose in large part because pregnancy and caregiving of infants is structural biologically. In many ways, a modern society does not need the patriarchy because the dangers faced by vulnerable women during the childbearing and childrearing phases of their lives are no longer as dire.1
Humans are dimorphic sexually, meaning that the trend of body size and strength as reflected in statistical curves for women compared to mean shows that woman have on mean lower mass and lower overall body strength than men. Whether this is a result of social adaptation in a male-dominated society in which males are selected sexually for strength and size while women are selected for mating based on sexual desirability (whichever traits are culturally prevalent) is not relevant to this article, but it is indicative of the reason that we define women by the specific function of their reproductive system.
Reproductive function is the defining characteristic of the difference between sexes, and that is important to know because trans-claiming peoples and their allies do their best to cast doubt in their rhetoric on why women are a class apart from men. It’s not a matter of choice or personal identification, not gatekeeping, it’s an evolved set of adaptations in culture and physical structure that sets us apart between male and women.
The easily recognized fallacy in the case of the argument that this is “reducing people down to their genitals.” As if we gender skeptics only see dicks and pussies when we see men and women. I would classify this rhetorical trick as a reduction fallacy. Let’s illustrate with a more obvious example. Let’s use cars.
I drive a Kia Niro. My neighbor drives a Hyundai Kona. The cars share a platform, and many features, but their designs are recognizably different. They differ in their interior features, but share many parts for economy of design and repair. They are both products of the larger Hundai corporation so we could say that they are of the same family, but different genera. 2 Two friends are having a discussion about our cars, and one says “They’re the same care, basically. Can’t tell the difference.” The other counters, “But they have different nameplates! Hyundai and Kia!” The first replies “You’re reducing them to their nameplates!”
There recognizable differences between them. Through basic familiarity, one can recognize either as a Niro or a Kona by the shape of their bodies, their contours, and stylistic flourishes. Although the nameplate would certainly identify which is which, it’s not necessary.
In humans, due to the fact that fetuses develop sex differences in fetal stage, girls are born with all their gametes and once their bodies mature during puberty, the eggs are released once every cycle. Boys don’t produce any gametes until they hit puberty (and are spared the embarrassment of suddently staining their clothes while in school. It’s more likely their bedsheets that are stained during nocturnal emissions.) These are defining developmental characteristics, separating boys from girls. We just can’t define our way around this and claim that new biology doesn’t recognize sex differences.
These differences are the reason that males and females are divided into gender classes, and are socialized for preferences and roles. Trans and their allies would have us believe that those who don’t buy their claims are reducing girls to their genitals are playing a trick, saying we think that this is all that’s important about girlhood.
But, then, whose “affirmations” depend on surgical modification of the genitals to appear as those of the other sex? Critical thinking requires an understanding of the background of sex class (gender) differentiation. It’s not a secret. I’ll recommend a seminal book for popular reading first published in 1973 that goes through the history of gender and sex: The Subordinated Sex: A History of Attitudes Towards Women. 3
After reading this, you’ll rightfully start to challenge the claim that trans ID males are the most oppressed class. But more importantly, you’ll recognize that patriarchy has evolved to restrict women based on their reproductive role whether actively fertile or not. Gender roles are the tool by which this is done.
“You’re reducing women to their genitals” is one of the stupidest fallacies used in trans rhetoric, even more stupid than “you have a unisex bathroom at home.” Only a fool uses it, and if you are in an argument on social media with someone who uses it, mute them and move on. It’s well known that when you argue with a fool, observers can’t see the difference between the two of you.
Male violence against women has not disappeared, of course, and is prevalent among domestic pairings in which the male is nominatively the “protector.” Women are probably safer single than they are in pairings with males.
It’s not an exact analogy to humans, but biology and mechanical design are different fields of science from each other.
Disclosure, this is through my Amazon seller’s account. I have a copy that I purchased at a library sale for $.49, revised in 1988.
The leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide - by far, the women's partner. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
My question is, why? When a women is MOST vulnerable and needs the MOST protection, her own partner is her highest risk.
But, now women are being erased in language and in law in order to abolish the last remaining legal protections available to us. And people wonder why we need feminism. As if feminism was created on a whim for the purpose of oppressing men.
Most women live in a constant state of fear and appeasement in order to cope with male rage. Not exactly the best frame of minds to be in when raising children. I know. I lived with a father who repeatedly raped and beat my mother. She did her best but at times we hated how she treated us, even as adults.
Patriarchy must be dismantled if we are to retain any shred of our humanity as a species. It starts by destroying the alpha males at the top who are exploiting the rest of us and concentrating all the wealth in their control. It's never enough.